Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing. Ann Surg. 2016;263:761-777. [PMID: 26700223 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001413]

Systematic review and meta-analysis of difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic and robotic liver resections

INTRODUCTION

The ability to stratify the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) allows surgeons at different phases of the learning curve to tackle cases of appropriate difficulty safely. Several difficulty scoring systems (DSS) have been formulated which attempt to accurately stratify this difficulty. The present study aims to review the literature pertaining to the existing DSS for MILR.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and metanalysis of the literature reporting on the formulation, supporting data, and comparison of DSS for MILR.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were identified which reported on the formulation of unique DSS for MILR. Five of these (Ban, Iwate, Hasegawa, Institut Mutaliste Montsouris [IMM], and Southampton DSS) were externally validated and shown to predict difficulty of MILR via a range of outcome measures. The Ban DSS was supported by pooled data from 10 studies (9 LLR, 1 RLR), Iwate by 10 studies (8 LLR, 2 RLR), Hasegawa by four studies (all LLR), IMM by eight studies (all LLR), and Southampton by five studies (all LLR). There was no clear superior DSS.

CONCLUSION

The existing DSS were all effective in predicting difficulty of MILR. Present studies comparing between DSS have not established a clear superior system, and the five main DSS have been found to be predictive of difficulty in LLR and two of these in RLR.

Risk factors for pulmonary complications after laparoscopic liver resection: a multicenter retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are among the most common complications after liver resection. Although the application of laparoscopy has reduced the incidence of PPCs, the rate of PPCs after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains high and the risk factors for the same are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the risk factors for PPCs after LLR.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 296 patients underwent LLR from January 2019 to December 2020. Demographic data, pathological variables, and perioperative variables were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors for PPCs.

RESULTS

Of the 296 patients, 80 (27.0%) developed PPCs. Patients with PPCs had significantly increased total costs, operation costs, length of stays, and postoperative hospital stays. Multivariate analysis identified three independent risk factors for PPCs after LLR: smoking [Odds ratio (OR): 5.413, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.446-11.978, P =  < 0.001], location of lesion in segment 7 or 8 (OR 3.134, 95% CI 1.593-6.166, P = 0.001), duration of liver ischemia (OR 1.038, 95% CI 1.022-1.054, P < 0.001), and presence of intraoperative hypothermia (OR 3.134, 95% CI 1.593-6.166, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Smoking, location of lesion in segment 7 or 8, duration of liver ischemia and intraoperative hypothermia were independent risk factors for PPCs which significantly increased the length of stays and burden of healthcare costs.

Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to liver resection have been increasingly adopted into use for surgery on colorectal cancer liver metastases. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes when comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), and open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in 39 studies (2009-2022) that include a case-matched series, propensity score analyses, and three randomized clinical trials. LLR is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with OLR. LLR can be performed with comparable operative time. LLR has similar rates of perioperative complications and mortality as OLR. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall or disease-free survival between approaches. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has comparable perioperative safety to LLR and may improve rates of R0 resection in certain patients. Finally, MIS approaches to the hepatic resection of CRLM reduce the time from liver resection to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, MIS liver surgery should be considered in the array of options for patients with CRLM, though thoughtful patient selection and surgeon experience should be part of that decision.

Textbook outcomes and benchmarks of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy across North America

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approach represents the gold standard for the resection of the left lateral section of the liver. Recently, the American Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) registry has become available to track outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic liver resection in the Americas. The aim of the present study is to determine the benchmark performance of MILLS throughout the AMILES database.

METHODS

The AMILES registry was interrogated for cases of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies (MILLS). Centers with best practices according to the achievement of textbook outcomes (TOs) were identified and were used to define benchmark performances.

RESULTS

Seven institutions from US and Canada entered 1665 minimally invasive liver resections, encompassing 203 MILLS. Overall, 49% of cases of MILLS satisfied contemporarily all textbook outcomes. While all centers obtained TOs with different rates of success, the outcomes of the top-ranking centers were used for benchmarking. Benchmark performance metrics of MILLS across North America are: conversion rate ≤ 3.7%, blood loss ≤ 200 ml, OR time ≤ 199 min, transfusion rate ≤ 4.5%, complication rate ≤ 7.9%, LOS ≤ 4 days.

CONCLUSION

Benchmark performances of MILLS have been defined on a large multi-institutional database in North America. As more institutions join the collaboration and more prospective cases accrue, benchmark for additional procedures and approaches will be defined.

Assessing the Educational Value of YouTube Videos on Major Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Cross-sectional Study of the Top 20 Most Viewed Laparoscopic Right and Left Hepatectomy Videos

BACKGROUND

Surgical videos uploaded on social media platforms like YouTube augment the learning experience of advanced procedures like major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). However, because of the heterogeneous quality, the educational value of such videos is unproven. This study assesses the educational value of YouTube's top 20 most viewed major LLR videos.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search terms "laparoscopic hemihepatectomy," "laparoscopic right hepatectomy," and "laparoscopic left hepatectomy" were searched on YouTube on October 7, 2020. Exclusion criteria were minor hepatectomy, open hepatectomy, live donor right and left hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy videos, and nonstandard laparoscopic technique. Videos were graded based on adherence to key steps in LLR and compliance to the modified LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS); 29 of the original 37 consensus statements were used in our study.

RESULTS

The videos have a median of 7647 views (range: 2675 to 67,449), a median of 34 likes (range: 3 to 67), and a median of 1 dislike (range: 0 to 22). The median duration of major LLR videos was 11.0 minutes (range: 6.38 to 223 min). Majority of the videos had duration of <30 minutes (n=18/20, 90%). There were 14 videos (70%) demonstrating all defined surgical steps. The liver mobilization was shown in 17 videos (75%). Vascular inflow control of hepatic artery and portal vein and vascular outflow control were demonstrated in 18 videos (90%). Parenchymal transection and hemostasis were shown in all videos. The median LAP-VEGaS score across all 20 videos is 6 (range: 1 to 11) out of 29, translating to a median score of 20.6% (range: 3.4% to 37.9%). Thirteen out of 29 of the LAP-VEGaS criteria graded (44.8%) were not met by any of the 20 videos.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 20 most viewed surgical videos on laparoscopic right and left hepatectomy may not be the ideal material for the educational value of surgical trainees. The LAP-VEGaS guidelines are too exhaustive for relevance to social media platforms as an educational tool.

A Comparative Study of an Integrated Ultrasonic/Bipolar Sealing Device Versus an Articulating Bipolar Sealing Device for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

BACKGROUND

Sealing devices (SD) seal and cut tissue through different energy modalities, and are routinely used in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of Thunderbeat (TB), an integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD, versus Enseal (ES), an articulating bipolar SD, in LLS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted in a single center from December 2013 to September 2020. The primary endpoint was difference in blood loss (BL) between ES and TB. Secondary endpoints were complications, operative time, hospital stay, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

352 patients were identified: TB (n = 105) and ES (n = 247). Median BL was significantly lower with TB (50 mL [20-120]) compared to ES (100 mL [50-250]) (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were identified for median operative time (TB 115 min [45-300]) vs. ES 140 min [40-370]; p = 0.0008) and median hospital stay (TB 2 days [1-4] vs. ES 4 days [3-6]; p < 0.0001). No major differences were encountered for postoperative bleeding (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 0.5574), biliary leak (TB 1% vs. ES 2%; p = 1.0000), and 90-day mortality (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 1.0000).

CONCLUSION

The integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD is superior to the articulating bipolar SD in LLS for intraoperative BL without an increase in complications.

Laparoscopic liver resection reduces postoperative infection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

This study is aimed to compare the occurrence of postoperative infections between patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and those undergoing open liver resection (OLR).

METHODS

This study included 446 patients who underwent initial curative liver resection for HCC 5 cm or less in size without macroscopic vascular invasion. To adjust for confounding factors between the LLR and OLR groups, propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting (IPW) analysis were performed. The incidence rates of postoperative infection, including incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, and remote infection (RI), were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

An imbalance in several confounding variables, including period of surgery, extent of liver resection, difficult location, proximity to a major vessel, tumor size ≥ 3 cm, and multiple tumors, was observed between the two groups in the original cohort. After matching and weighting, the imbalance between the two groups significantly decreased. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss (140 vs. 350 mL, P < 0.001 in the matched cohort; 120 vs. 320 mL, P < 0.001 in the weighted cohort) and reduced risk of postoperative infection (2.0% vs. 12%, P = 0.015 in the matched cohort; 2.9% vs. 14%, P = 0.005 in the weighted cohort). Of the types of postoperative infections, organ/space SSI and RI were less frequently observed in the LLR group than in the OLR group in the matched cohort (1.0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.091 for organ/space SSI; 0% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.001 for RI) and in the weighted cohort (1.2% vs. 7.8%, P < 0.001 for organ/space SSI; 0.3% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.009 for RI).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OLR, LLR for HCC might reduce postoperative infections, including organ/space SSI and RI.

Defining Textbook Outcome in liver surgery and assessment of hospital variation: A nationwide population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite outcome measure covering the surgical care process in a single outcome measure. TO has an advantage over single outcome parameters with low event rates, which have less discriminating impact to detect differences between hospitals. This study aimed to assess factors associated with TO, and evaluate hospital and network variation after case-mix correction in TO rates for liver surgery.

METHODS

This was a population-based retrospective study of all patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy in the Netherlands in 2019 and 2020. TO was defined as absence of severe postoperative complications, mortality, prolonged length of hospital stay, and readmission, and obtaining adequate resection margins. Multivariable logistic regression was used for case-mix adjustment.

RESULTS

2376 patients were included. TO was accomplished in 1380 (80%) patients with colorectal liver metastases, in 192 (76%) patients with other liver metastases, in 183 (74%) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and 86 (51%) patients with biliary cancers. Factors associated with lower TO rates for CRLM included ASA score ≥3 (aOR 0.70, CI 0.51-0.95 p = 0.02), extrahepatic disease (aOR 0.64, CI 0.44-0.95, p = 0.02), tumour size >55 mm on preoperative imaging (aOR 0.56, CI 0.34-0.94, p = 0.02), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (aOR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.98, p = 0.04), and major liver resection (aOR 0.50, CI 0.36-0.69, p < 0.001). After case-mix correction, no significant hospital or oncological network variation was observed.

CONCLUSION

TO differs between indications for liver resection and can be used to assess between hospital and network differences.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Right Anterior and Right Posterior Sectionectomy vs Right Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched and Coarsened-Exact-Matched Analysis of 1,100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive right anterior and right posterior sectionectomy (MI-RAS/MI-RPS) for right-sided liver lesions remains debatable. Although technically more demanding, these procedures might result in faster recovery and lower postoperative morbidity compared with minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,114 patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy, MI-RAS, and MI-RPS at 21 centers between 2006 and 2019. Minimally invasive surgery included pure laparoscopic, robotic, hand-assisted, or a hybrid approach. A propensity-matched and coarsened-exact-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,100 cases met study criteria, of whom 759 underwent laparoscopic, 283 robotic, 11 hand-assisted, and 47 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) surgery. There were 632 right hemihepatectomies, 373 right posterior sectionectomies, and 95 right anterior sectionectomies. There were no differences in baseline characteristics after matching. In the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group, median blood loss was higher (400 vs 300 mL, p = 0.001) as well as intraoperative blood transfusion rate (19.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.004). However, the overall morbidity rate was lower including major morbidity (7.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.007) and reoperation rate (1.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.029). The rate of close/involved margins was higher in the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group (23.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). These findings were consistent after both propensity and coarsened-exact matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically more demanding, MI-RAS/MI-RPS is a valuable alternative for minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy in right-sided liver lesions with lower postoperative morbidity, possibly due to the preservation of parenchyma. However, the rate of close/involved margins is higher in these procedures. These findings might guide surgeons in preoperative counselling and in selecting the appropriate procedure for their patients.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Delayed return of gastrointestinal function after hepatectomy in an ERAS program: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Delayed return of gastrointestinal function (DGIF) after hepatectomy can involve increased morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. Yet, data on incidence and risks factors are lacking.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy between June 2018 and December 2020 were included. All patients were included in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. DGIF was defined by the need for nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion after surgery. DGIF risk factors were identified.

RESULTS

Overall, 206 patients underwent hepatectomy. DGIF occurred in 41 patients (19.9%) after a median time of 2 days (range, 1-14). Among them, 6 patients (14.6%) developed aspiration pneumonia, of which one required ICU for mechanical ventilation. DGIF developed along with an intraabdominal complication in 7 patients (biliary fistula, n = 5; anastomotic fistula, n = 1; adhesive small bowel obstruction, n = 1). DGIF was associated with significantly increased severe morbidity rate (p = 0.001), prolonged time to normal food intake (p < 0.001) and hospital stay (p < 0.001) and significantly decreased overall compliance rate (p = 0.001). Independent risk factors of DGIF were age (p < 0.001), vascular reconstruction (p = 0.007), anaesthetic induction using volatiles (p = 0.003) and epidural analgesia (p = 0.004). Using these 4 variables, a simple DGIF risk score has been developed allowing patient stratification in low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

DGIF after hepatectomy was frequently observed and significantly impacted postoperative outcomes. Identifying risk factors remains critical for preventing its occurrence.

New concepts in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death and occurs mainly in the context of chronic liver disease at cirrhosis stage. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, first established in 1999, is the most commonly used staging system for HCC in Western countries that link tumor burden, liver function and performance status with prognosis and therapeutic management. Since the first publication of this classification, it has been implemented in several clinical guidelines and recent major therapeutic advances in the management of HCC have modified the therapeutic landscape of HCC. Accordingly, an updated version was recently published in 2022, incorporating an expert clinical decision-making component and the concept of treatment stage migration. This update also introduces the positive results of recent randomized clinical trials, and introduces atezolizumab/bevacizumab (A/B) as a first-line combination regimen for patients with advanced HCC. Finally, the complexity of the management of patients with HCC highlights the need for a multidisciplinary approach including input from hepatology, surgery, radiology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology.

Value of 3D printing technology combined with indocyanine green fluorescent navigation in complex laparoscopic hepatectomy

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has achieved rapid progress over the last decade. However, it is still challenging to apply laparoscopy to lesions located in segments I, VII, VIII, and IVa and the hepatic hilar region due to difficulty operating around complex anatomical structures. In this study, we applied three-dimensional printing (3DP) and indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging technology to complex laparoscopic hepatectomy (CLH) to explore the effects and value of the modified procedure.

Materials and methods

From January 2019 to January 2021, 54 patients with complex hepatobiliary diseases underwent LH at our center. Clinical data were collected from these patients and retrospectively analyzed.

Results

A total of 30 patients underwent CLH using the conventional approach, whereas 24 cases received CLH with 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation. Preoperative data were compared between the two groups. In the 3DP group, we modified the surgical strategy of four patients (4/24, 16.7%) due to real-time intraoperative navigation with 3DP and ICG fluorescent imaging technology. We did not modify the surgical strategy for any patient in the non-3DP group (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the non-3DP and 3DP groups regarding operating time (297.7±104.1 min vs. 328.8±110.9 min, P = 0.15), estimated blood loss (400±263.8 ml vs. 345.8±356.1 ml, P = 0.52), rate of conversion to laparotomy (3/30 vs. 2/24, P = 0.79), or pathological outcomes including the incidence of microscopical R0 margins (28/30 vs. 24/24, P = 0.57). Additionally, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications or recovery conditions between the two groups. No instances of 30- or 90-day mortality were observed.

Conclusion

The optimal surgical strategy for CLH can be chosen with the help of 3DP technology and ICG fluorescent navigation. This modified procedure is both safe and effective, but without improvement of intraoperative and short-term outcomes.

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection and evaluation of alternative procedures to assist bleeding control

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver (PM) in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and to assess alternative procedures to PM.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing LLR between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and the outcomes of patients who underwent PM or alternative procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Among 106 patients who underwent LLR, PM could not be performed in 18 (17.0%) because of abdominal adhesions in 14 (77.8%) and/or collateral flow around the hepatoduodenal ligament in 5 (27.8%). Multivariate analysis revealed that Child-Pugh classification B (p = 0.034) and previous liver resection (p < 0.001) were independently associated with difficulty in performing PM in LLR. We evaluated pre-coagulation of liver tissue using microwave tissue coagulators, saline irrigation monopolar, clamping of the hepatoduodenal ligament using an intestinal clip, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as alternatives procedures to PM. There were no significant differences in blood loss (p = 0.391) or transfusion (p = 0.518) between the PM and alternative procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Child-Pugh classification B and previous liver resection were identified as predictors of a difficult PM in LLR. The alternative procedures were found to be effective.

Full Laparoscopic Vascular Reconstruction for Portal Tumoral Invasion During a Right Hepatectomy Using the Caudal Approach

Background

Laparoscopic liver surgery has progressively evolved. Consequently, liver procedures are increasingly performed laparoscopically, particularly in experienced centers. However, vascular resection and reconstruction still are considered a limitation for laparoscopy1 due to the risk of bleeding and the technical difficulty.

Methods

A 72-year-old woman with a history of colorectal cancer had a 10 cm metastasis diagnosed in the right hemiliver with tumoral invasion of the right portal branch and tumor thrombus advancing to the portal confluence. After adjuvant chemotherapy and with stable disease, surgical resection was planned.2,3 Tips to avoid portal stenosis were carefully followed.

Results

The operation was performed with a fully laparoscopic procedure. To minimize manipulation, an in situ right hepatectomy was performed.4 The right hepatic artery was dissected and ligated. The liver transection was guided with a caudal approach of the middle hepatic vein.5 The right biliary duct was then divided, achieving an excellent exposure of the portal bifurcation. The main and left portal trunks were occluded with vascular clamps, and the right portal vein was sharply divided with scissors. The stump was sutured to minimize backflow bleeding and to cover the tumor thrombus. Then, the portal opening was transversally sutured with a 5/0 running suture. The clamps were released, and the authors observed no bleeding and an adequate caliber with no stenosis. The procedure was completed in the standard fashion. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the woman was discharged on postoperative day 3. No early or late complications were observed.6

Conclusions

In selected cases, patients who require vascular resection and reconstruction during hepatectomies can benefit from the advantages of a laparoscopic approach.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection and Risk Factors for Adverse Events

PURPOSE

The perioperative outcomes and risk factors associated with adverse events (AEs) after initial laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear. We studied the outcomes of LLR and identified the predictive factors for AEs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 100 adults who underwent LLR between April 2014 and February 2020 were reviewed. Baseline characteristics, surgery details, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were tabulated. The AEs included conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Major and minor LLRs accounted for 16% and 84% of cases, respectively. Of the indications for LLR, 88% were malignancies. Conversion to open surgery was necessary for 7% of the patients, the overall morbidity rate was 21%, the major morbidity rate was 7%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 1%. Although the incidence of AEs was higher after major LLR (37.5%) than after minor LLR (21.4%), the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.095); the rate of AEs in the resection of posterosuperior segments (43.7%) did not significantly differ from that of the anteroinferior segments (19.2%; P=0.095). Multivariable analysis revealed that the significant predictors of AEs included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III (odds ratio, 5.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-19.1; P=0.003) and an operative time longer than 5 hours (odds ratio, 9.20; 95% confidence interval, 2.41-35.07; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

To improve outcomes in LLR, patients with ASA class III and those in whom surgery is expected to last longer than 5 hours should be taken into account for better patient selection.

External validation of different difficulty scoring systems of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several difficulty scoring systems (DSSs) have been proposed for evaluating difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and no study has validated their performance in a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-only cohort at the same time.

METHODS

All cases with HCC that underwent LLR from January 2015 to December 2020 in our center were retrospectively collected. Performance of the IWATE-DSS, Halls-DSS, Hasegawa-DSS, and Kawaguchi-DSS in predicting perioperative outcomes was evaluated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare perioperative outcomes between surgeons on the learning curve and surgeons that have gone through the learning curve.

RESULTS

For all four DSSs, there were significant distributions of applying bleeding control, surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative major complications, and postoperative hospital stay among different groups of each DSS (P all < 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy or not was significantly distributed in different groups of the IWATE-DSS (P = 0.006) and Halls-DSS (P = 0.022), while it was not in the Hasegawa-DSS (P = 0.056) and Kawaguchi-DSS (P = 0.183). Trend tests showed that the conversion rates increased with higher DSS points in the IWATE-DSS (P < 0.001) and the Kawaguchi-DSS (P = 0.021), while not in the Halls-DSS (P = 0.064) and the Hasegawa-DSS (P = 0.068). In the medium and advanced/expert difficulty-level subgroups defined by the IWATE-DSS, there were larger estimated blood loss (P in medium-difficulty group = 0.009; P in the advanced/expert difficulty group = 0.004) and longer postoperative hospital stay (P in the medium-difficulty group = 0.012; P in the advanced/expert group = 0.035) in the learner-performed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

All DSSs performed well in predicting applying bleeding control, surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative major complications, and postoperative hospital stay, while only the IWATE-DSS was able to predict whether conversion to laparotomy or not for HCC patients underwent LLR. The IWATE-DSS was also able to help surgeons on the LLR learning curve choose cases and guide clinical practices.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

The role of re-resection in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose

While liver resection is a well-established treatment for primary HCC, surgical treatment for recurrent HCC (rHCC) remains the topic of an ongoing debate. Thus, we investigated perioperative and long-term outcome in patients undergoing re-resection for rHCC in comparative analysis to patients with primary HCC treated by resection.

Methods

A monocentric cohort of 212 patients undergoing curative-intent liver resection for HCC between 2010 and 2020 in a large German hepatobiliary center were eligible for analysis. Patients with primary HCC (n = 189) were compared to individuals with rHCC (n = 23) regarding perioperative results by statistical group comparisons and oncological outcome using Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

Comparative analysis showed no statistical difference between the resection and re-resection group in terms of age (p = 0.204), gender (p = 0.180), ASA category (p = 0.346) as well as main preoperative tumor characteristics, liver function parameters, operative variables, and postoperative complications (p = 0.851). The perioperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) and mortality were 21.7% (5/23) and 8.7% (2/23) in rHCC, while 25.4% (48/189) and 5.8% (11/189) in primary HCC, respectively (p = 0.851). The median overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the resection group were 40 months and 26 months, while median OS and RFS were 41 months and 29 months in the re-resection group, respectively (p = 0.933; p = 0.607; log rank).

Conclusion

Re-resection is technically feasible and safe in patients with rHCC. Further, comparative analysis displayed similar oncological outcome in patients with primary and rHCC treated by liver resection. Re-resection should therefore be considered in European patients diagnosed with rHCC.

Lymphadenectomy and margin-negative resection for biliary tract cancer surgery in the United States-Differential technical performance by approach

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to biliary tract cancers become more commonplace, understanding the adequacy of their oncologic performance is key.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database 2010-2016 was queried for patients who underwent hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) and T1b or more advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). Patients were grouped by approach: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and robotic (RA). Margin status, rate of lymph node (LN) dissection, and yield of LN dissection were evaluated.

RESULTS

This cohort of 8612 patients, including 4034 patients with IHC (OA: 3281, LA: 675, RA: 78) and 4578 patients with GBC (OA: 1893, LA: 2588, RA: 97), MIS was used 40% of the time. R0 resection was achieved in 82% OA, 84% LA, and 91% RA, p = 0.004. Rate of LN dissection was 53% (OA: 60%, LA: 42%, RA: 51%, p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, 6 + LN were retrieved less commonly with a LA (OA: 27%, LA: 20%, and RA: 30%, p < 0.001). High-volume MIS hepatectomy centers were more likely to perform a lymphadenectomy (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41) and a sampling of 6 + LN (OR: 1.18).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of approach, lymphadenectomy is underperformed nationwide for biliary tract tumors, particularly with LA. As the use of MIS grows for the treatment of biliary tract cancers, scrutiny of oncologic outcomes is required.

Predictors of discharge timing and unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to determine the predictors of discharge timing and 90-day unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

Consecutive LLR performed at the "Institut Mutualiste Montsouris" between 2000 and 2019 were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Length of stay (LOS) was stratified according to surgical difficulty and was categorized as early (LOS<25th percentile), routine (25th percentile<75th percentile), and delayed discharge otherwise. Uni-and-multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with the time of discharge and 90-day unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

Early discharge occurred in 15.7% patients whereas delayed discharge occurred in 20.6% patients. Concomitant pancreatic resections (OR 26.8, 95% CI 5.75-125, p < 0.0001) and removal of colorectal primary tumors (OR 7.14, 95% CI 3.98-12.8, p < 0.0001) were the strongest predictors of delayed discharge whereas ERP implementation was the strongest predictor of early discharge (OR 7.4, 95% CI 4.60-11.9, p < 0.0001). Unplanned readmission rate was lower among early discharged patients (7.4% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.0001). Bile leakage was the strongest predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.12-15.8, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Concomitant colorectal or pancreatic resections were the strongest predictors of delayed discharge. Postoperative bile leakage was the strongest predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission following LLR.

Liver Surgery: Important Considerations for Pre- and Postoperative Imaging

Liver surgery may be a curative treatment option not only for primary liver neoplasms but also for liver metastases in selected patients. The number of liver surgeries performed worldwide has increased, but surgical morbidity associated with these surgeries remains significant. Therefore, radiologists need to understand the terminology, surgical techniques, resectability and unresectability criteria, and possible postoperative complications as these are part of the decision-making process. Because vascular and biliary variations are common, an adequate preoperative anatomic evaluation determines the best surgical technique, helps identify patients in whom additional surgical steps will be required, and reduces the risk of inadvertent injury. The surgeon must ensure that the future liver remnant is sufficient to maintain adequate function, aided by the radiologist who can provide valuable information such as the presence of steatosis, biliary dilatation, signs of cirrhosis, and portal hypertension, in addition to the volume of the future liver remnant. Postoperative complications must also be understood and evaluated. The most common postoperative complications are vascular (bleeding, thrombosis, and ischemia), biliary (fistulas, bilomas, and strictures), infectious (incisional or deep), those related to liver failure, and even tumor recurrence. An invited commentary by Winslow is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2022.

Bile leak incidence, risk factors and associated outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a contemporary NSQIP propensity matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in surgical technique, bile leak remains a common complication following hepatectomy. We sought to identify incidence of, risk factors for, and outcomes associated with biliary leak.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an ACS-NSQIP study. Distribution of bile leak stratified by surgical approach and hepatectomy type were identified. Univariate and multivariate factors associated with bile leak and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Robotic hepatectomy was associated with less bile leak (5.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001) compared to open. There were no significant differences in bile leak between robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy (5.4% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.905, respectively). Operative factors risk factors for bile leak in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy included right hepatectomy [OR 4.42 (95% CI 1.74-11.20); p = 0.002], conversion [OR 4.40 (95% CI 1.39-11.72); p = 0.010], pringle maneuver [OR 3.19 (95% CI 1.03-9.88); p = 0.044], and drain placement [OR 28.25 (95% CI 8.34-95.72); p < 0.001]. Bile leak was associated with increased reoperation (8.7% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (26.6% vs 6.8%, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality (2% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), and complications (67.2% vs 23.4%, p < 0.001) for patients undergoing MIS hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

While MIS confers less risk for bile leak than open hepatectomy, risk factors for bile leak in patients undergoing MIS hepatectomy were identified. Bile leaks were associated with multiple additional complications, and the robotic approach had an equal risk for bile leak than laparoscopic in this time period.

Association between achieving textbook outcomes and better survival after laparoscopic liver resection in the anterolateral segments in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The quality of surgical procedures are assessed by textbook outcomes (TO). LLR is considered a standard treatment for HCC in the anterolateral segments of the liver. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting achievement of TO for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and its impact on survival.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LLR for lesions located in the anterolateral segments (n=309). Patients were divided into TO and non-TO group.

RESULTS

A TO was achieved in 55.0% of patients (n=170). In multivariable analysis, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >10 (odds ratio[OR] 3.076; 95% confidence interval[CI] 1.134-8.342), absence of diabetes mellitus (OR 2.325; 95% CI 1.227-4.407) and thrombocytopenia (OR 2.115; 95% CI 1.134-8.342) were independently associated with not achieving TO. The 5-year overall (82.9% vs. 72.8%, P=0.017) and recurrence-free (48.8% vs. 35.4%; P=0.036) survival rates were significantly greater in the TO group than in the non-TO group.

CONCLUSION

The MELD score, thrombocytopenia, and hypoalbuminemia were independent risk factors influencing the achievement of TO. TO influences the short- and long-term outcomes after LLR for HCC.

Operative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open major liver resection in patients with a high body mass index (> 25 kg/m2): a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

With the recent rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity, the number of obese patients requiring liver resection, including laparoscopy, has increased. Accordingly, evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in obese patients is increasingly important. This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic major liver resection (LMR) and open major liver resection (OMR) in patients with a high body mass index (BMI > 25.0 kg/m²).

METHODS

We reviewed 521 patients with high BMI (> 25.0 kg/m²) who underwent major liver resection for various indications between January 2009 and November 2018 at Asan Medical Center. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching of the LMR and OMR groups, with 120 patients subsequently included in each group.

RESULTS

LMR was associated with lower blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stays (p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in overall complications (p = 0.080), non-liver-specific complications were observed less frequently after LMR (p = 0.025). American Society of Anesthesiologists class > II, BMI > 30 kg/m², and malignancy were independent predictors of morbidity. In a subgroup analysis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, there was no significant difference between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.225; 95% confidence interval 0.049-1.047; p = 0.057) and recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.761; 95% confidence interval 0.394-1.417; p = 0.417).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity should not be considered a contraindication for major liver resection using a laparoscopic approach; however, when applying this approach for resecting malignancies in patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m² and comorbid diseases, special attention should be paid to the possibility of complications.

A chronological review of 500 minimally invasive liver resections in a North American institution: overcoming stagnation and toward consolidation

BACKGROUND

Although interest in expanding the application of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is high the world over, most of the extensive experience in MILR has been reported from Far East Asia and Europe and its adoption in North America is limited. The aim of this study was to review the experience of MILR in a single North American institute over a 15-year period, highlighting both the obstacles encountered and strategies adopted to overcome the stagnation in its uptake.

METHODS

This study included 500 MILR cases between 2006 and 2020. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical technique, and perioperative outcomes are summarized. The major hepatectomy rate and conversion rate were assessed according to case numbers (first 100, 101-300, and 301-500 cases) to assess chronological trends.

RESULTS

Of 500, 402 MILRs were done by pure laparoscopic (80.4%), 67 were hand assisted (13.4%), and 31 were robotic (6.2%). The majority (64%) of cases were performed for malignancy (n = 320; 100 Hepatocellular carcinoma, 153 Colorectal metastases, 27 Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and others, 40, 64%). A total of 71 cases were converted to open (14.2%). The annual case number gradually increased over the first few years; however, case numbers stayed around 30 between 2009 and 2017. In this period, despite accumulating MILR experience, open conversion rates increased despite no change in major hepatectomy rate. After this period of long-term stagnation, we introduced crucial changes in team composition and laparoscopic instrumentation. Our MILR case number and major hepatectomy rate thereafter increased significantly without increasing conversion or complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Our recovery from long-term stagnation by instituting key changes as detailed in this study could be used as a guidepost for programs that are contemplating transitioning their MILR program from minor to advanced resections. Establishing a formal MILR training model through proper mentorship/proctorship and building a dedicated MILR team would be imperative to this strategy.

Impact of laparoscopic liver resection on liver regeneration

BACKGROUND

Liver regeneration after liver resection plays an important role in preventing posthepatectomy liver failure. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on liver regeneration.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocellular carcinoma, and colorectal liver metastases at our institution between January 2010 and December 2018 were included in this study. The patients were divided into the OLR and LLR groups. Preoperative liver volume (PLV), future remnant liver volume, resected liver volume (RLV), liver volume at 1 month after the surgery, and liver volume at 6 months after the surgery were calculated. The liver regeneration rate was defined as the increase in the rate of RLV, and the liver recovery rate was defined as the rate of return to the PLV.

RESULTS

The study included 72 patients. Among them, 43 were included in the OLR group and 29 were included in the LLR group. No differences were observed in the baseline characteristics and surgical procedures between the two groups. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the liver regeneration rate at 1 month after the surgery (OLR vs. LLR: 68.9% vs. 69.0%, p = 0.875) and at 6 months after the surgery (91.8% vs. 93.2%, p = 0.995). Furthermore, the liver recovery rates were not significantly different between the two groups at 1 month after the surgery (90.3% vs. 90.6%, p = 0.893) and at 6 months after the surgery (96.9% vs. 98.8%, p = 0.986).

CONCLUSION

Liver regeneration after liver resection is not affected by the type of surgical procedure and both laparoscopic and open procedures yield similar regeneration and recovery rates.

Clinical effects of the use of the indocyanine green fluorescence imaging technique in laparoscopic partial liver resection

Aim

This study aimed to clarify the clinical effects of the indocyanine green (ICG)‐fluorescence imaging (FI) technique for determination of liver transection lines during laparoscopic partial liver resection for liver tumors.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including 112 patients who underwent laparoscopic partial liver resection for liver tumors. These enrolled patients were divided into an ICG‐FI group (n = 55) and a non‐ICG‐FI group (n = 57) according to the availability of the ICG‐FI. The clinicopathological characteristics of patients between two groups were compared before and after propensity score matching.

Results

The ICG‐FI and non‐ICG‐FI groups differed at baseline in terms of ICG retention rate at 15 min. After propensity score matching, two comparable groups of 32 patients each were obtained. The negativity rated of the pathological surgical margins were comparable between the two groups before and after propensity score matching. However, the surgical margins were significantly wider in the ICG‐FI group before and after propensity score matching (P = .039 and P = .047, respectively).

Conclusion

The ICG‐fluorescence imaging technique may offer clinical benefits in terms of a secure surgical margin in laparoscopic partial liver resection.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is gaining popularity. Recent data and views on the implementation of laparoscopic and robotic MILS throughout Europe are lacking.

METHODS

An anonymous survey consisting of 46 questions was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 120 surgeons from 103 centers in 24 countries. Median annual center volume of liver resection was 100 [IQR 50-140]. The median annual volume of MILS per center was 30 [IQR 16-40]. For minor resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 80 (67%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 35 (29%) surgeons. For major resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 74 (62%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 33 (28%) surgeons. The majority of the surgeons stated that minimum annual volume of MILS per center should be around 21-30 procedures/year. Of the surgeons performing robotic surgery, 28 (70%) felt they missed specific equipment, such as a robotic-CUSA. Seventy (66%) surgeons provided a formal MILS training to residents and fellows. In 5 years' time, 106 (88%) surgeons felt that MILS would have superior value as compared to open liver surgery.

CONCLUSION

In the participating European liver centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections and is expected to increase further. Laparoscopic MILS is still twice as common as robotic MILS. Development of specific instruments for robotic liver parenchymal transection might further increase its adoption.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 min (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 min (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

Comparative outcomes of pure laparoscopic and open donor right hepatectomy: the first report from a Southeast Asian transplant center

Background

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) can provide better operative outcomes for the donor than conventional open donor right hepatectomy (CODRH). However, the complexity of the procedure typically makes transplant teams reluctant to perform it, especially in low-volume transplant centers. We compared the outcomes of PLDRH and CODRH to demonstrate the feasibility of PLDRH in a low-volume transplant program.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective study of adult living donor liver transplantation in Chiang Mai University Hospital from January 2015 to March 2021. The patients were divided into a PLDRH group and a CODRH group. Baseline characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative complications of donors and recipients were compared between the two groups.

Results

Thirty patients underwent donor hepatectomy between the dates selected (9 PLDRH patients and 21 CODRH patients). The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were not significantly different. The median graft volume of the PLDRH group was 693.8 mL, which was not significantly different from that of the CODRH group (726.5 mL) The PLDRH group had a longer operative time than the CODRH group, but the difference was not statistically significant (487.5 min vs 425.0 min, p = 0.197). The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups (33.3% vs 22.2%, p = 0.555). Additionally, for the recipients, the incidence of major complications was not significantly different between the groups (71.3 vs 55.6%, p = 0.792).

Conclusion

Even in the context of this low-volume transplant program, whose staff have a high level of experience in minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery, PLDRH showed similar results to CODRH in terms of perioperative outcomes for donors and recipients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-022-01507-0.

The cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hepatectomy compared with open liver resection in the early stage of hepatocellular carcinoma: a decision-analysis model in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is increasing operate. In the early stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), many studies supported that laparoscopic liver resection was a safe procedure and showed some clinical benefits. However, the full economic evaluation has not been fully investigated.

METHODS

A hybrid model of decision tree and Markov state transition model was constructed. Health outcomes were life-year gained (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted by 1,000 micro-simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported and the willingness to pay (WTP) was defined at 160,000 THB per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection in the early stage of HCC was not cost-effective. In the base-case analysis, the total lifetime cost of laparoscopic approach was an average of 413,377 THB (US$13,214) higher than open approach by 55,474 THB (US$1,773) with a small QALY gained. The resulting ICER was 1,356,521 THB (US$43,362) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection is not considered as a cost-effective alternative to open liver surgery in the early stage of HCC. In the Thai healthcare perspective, the results from this study may inform policymakers for the future policy implementation and healthcare resource allocation.

Incidence and Clinical Impact of Bile Leakage after Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resection: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study of 13,379 Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite many developments, postoperative bile leakage (POBL) remains a relatively common postoperative complication after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR). This study aimed to assess the incidence and clinical impact of POBL in patients undergoing LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter cohort using a propensity score-matched analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all indications between January 2000 and October 2019 were retrospectively analyzed using a large, international, multicenter liver database including data from 15 tertiary referral centers. Primary outcome was clinically relevant POBL (CR-POBL), defined as Grade B/C POBL.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,379 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (6,369 LLR and 7,010 OLR), with 6.0% POBL. After propensity score matching, a total of 3,563 LLR patients were matched to 3,563 OLR patients. In both groups, propensity score matching accounted for similar extent and types of resections. The incidence of CR-POBL was significantly lower in patients after LLR as compared with patients after OLR (2.6% vs 6.0%; p < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with CR-POBL, patients after LLR experienced less severe (non-POBL) postoperative complications (10.1% vs 20.9%; p = 0.028), a shorter hospital stay (12.5 vs 17 days; p = 0.001), and a lower 90-day/in-hospital mortality (0% vs 5.4%; p = 0.027) as compared with patients after OLR with CR-POBL.

CONCLUSION

Patients after LLR seem to experience a lower rate of CR-POBL as compared with the open approach. Our findings suggest that in patients after LLR, the clinical impact of CR-POBL is less than after OLR.